Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-00931-CV
____________
IN RE DAN MARTINEZ, JOYCE BLAIR, JAY GOOCH, JUDITH GOOCH, TRACY JOHNSON, TERRY MARTINEZ, MICHAEL JOHNSON, SCOTT MCNAMARA, LAURIE MCNAMARA, TIMOTHY E. LONG, CHERYL LONG, LEVI R. BIERMAN, COURTNEY BEL, DEREK GRAYSON, HAL BRENT HAMPTON, CAROL D. HAMPTON, DANA RATHMELL, LANCE RATHMELL, LEONARD H. CICHOWSKI, ANDREW COLE, SR., OSIE J. COLE, R.N. JASANI, B.R. JASANI, and RICHARD ATODD@ YARBROUGH, Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On September 24, 2004, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. On October 1, 2004, relators filed a clerk=s record and an emergency motion for temporary relief.
Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relators must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). Relators must also show there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 842. Generally, a reviewing court may not issue a writ of mandamus to supervise or correct incidental rulings of the trial court, such as a ruling on a plea in abatement, because the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Luby=s Cafeterias, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 813, (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding). Although there are exceptions to this general rule, relators have not shown that the exceptions to the general rule are applicable in this case.
Accordingly, we deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.